| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench -C -M prepared gives an error |
| Date: | 2016-03-17 02:43:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20160317.114321.169671826955986940.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
> We're not resetting the prepared[] array when we pull the plug on an
> existing connection.
>
> Is a connection per transaction really a sane case to consider?
Yes, I would think. This case reveals the connection overhead. We
already are able to handle the simple query cases. Why not for
extended query cases?
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-03-17 03:14:22 | Re: to_char(OF) is broken |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-17 02:30:06 | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench -C -M prepared gives an error |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vitaly Burovoy | 2016-03-17 03:02:24 | Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-17 02:30:06 | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench -C -M prepared gives an error |